The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > The over-blown science of global warming > Comments

The over-blown science of global warming : Comments

By Garth Paltridge, published 17/8/2009

Why is it that scientists have become so one-eyed in their public support for the disaster theory of climate change?

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. Page 8
  10. 9
  11. All
Actually, Q&A, odo does have a point.

You seem to have no hesitation in tarring even the mildest disagreement as "denialism" perpetrated by "wingnuts", yet the equally extreme alarmists, from the biggies like Gore, Sting or HRH, to posters on this forum, either get off scot-free, or the occasional mild tut-tut.

So, come on, attack the wingnuts who talk nonsense drowned cities and lifeless planets with the same fearless demeanour you do those of us who merely express doubt.
Posted by Clownfish, Wednesday, 19 August 2009 10:28:34 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I love fence sitters... and anything that improves the bottom line for Goldman Sachs. Go AGW!

I especially love the author's line for confirming the "fact" that any injection of CO2 into the atmosphere will increase temperature, thusly: "To be strictly accurate, we should say that its temperature will be higher than it would have been otherwise."

Is it possible to be more strictly accurate? Could we add "barring any mitigating circumstance (like changing solar intensity)." Or does the author believe that CO2 alone causes warming?

Sheesh!

Chant after me... carbon credits, carbon credits, carbon credits.
Posted by Yodaddy, Wednesday, 19 August 2009 11:57:14 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sorry but Garth's voice is the voice of the misinformed. Climate change is real already with real world affects, the science is sound and political correctness has nothing to do with it.

Multiple independent lines of research all confirm climate change and mainstream Australia has pretty much accepted the conclusions of our leading scientists on this. I think Garth's low opinion of them and their scientific achievements crosses over into insult.
Posted by Ken Fabos, Wednesday, 19 August 2009 10:21:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ken Fabos No you are wrong. Plenty of people do not accept the politically correct backed "Science". There have not been doubts but down right argument. In the last ten years temperatures have not risen. I have asked for proof (As per Fielding) and seen people assert that in fact the last ten years have shown higher temperatures but then all you get is insults and they have had enough of arguing and they are right rants.
Hitler and his mates were so good at this too. Keep the lie going, attack people who will not accept it and then say they are just a virulent minority. One other thing no one uses the term "Global Warming" now its AGW as acronyms are made to obfuscate and confuse (They think). The globe is not warming and this is just another disgusting tax as the new taxes on water are.
My only relief is that so often what deceitful plans people lay so often trip them up.
Posted by JBowyer, Thursday, 20 August 2009 8:20:56 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Clownfish

Those that talk in terms of 2m plus increases in sea levels by 2100 or 6 degrees C plus in global mean temperatures must have to invoke what is known as 'catastrophic climate change'. This is not likely (although CCC has happened in the geologic past) unless certain ‘tipping points’ are reached. Jim Hansen does spruik this scenario and politicians and celebrities use this ‘doomsday’ stuff to press for action. Please, read my lips ... THIS IS STRIDENTLY NOT NECESSARY, imho.

Why? Because sea level rises of say 80cm, or a GMT increase of 2 degrees C, is bad enough - the science behind this is obviously not understood by some people on this forum, for various reasons.

This is also why the UN Security Council and all the major military powers and advisers are adopting strategies and policies to address the adverse consequences of global warming - on food, energy, water, displaced populations, infrastructure, etc, etc. (I note you don't want to address the latter half of my response to IanC, which is important).

Incidentally, Gore and the IPCC got the Nobel Peace Prize for bringing countries of the world together to tackle an issue that threatens world peace – it’s a global problem. I am sure that if someone could debunk the science of global warming they would get a Nobel for physics or chemistry, or a Fields for maths - they would save everybody, everywhere an awful lot of time, money and anxiety.

Clownfish, if I apply the logic of your argument to you -> you accept the scientific principles of that espoused by Tom Tiddler a few posts back. While I don't buy it, maybe you do :)
Posted by Q&A, Thursday, 20 August 2009 12:14:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Global Warming with a mechanical motif

It is suggested that thoughts about the end of the world began with the later superheated onset of the industrial revolution.

As time went on through the steam train days man began to really believe he was superior to nature.

After WW2 with plenty of General Grant tanks on hand to clear more farmlands, the tanks were soon turned to scrap to make way for crawler tractors big enough in pairs joined by steel cables to clear scads of timbered farmlands in no time -

cockie clearers feeling so divine not to be locked in by tall eucalypts and able to now view the local town fifteen miles away.

Now back to those stirrer greenie types in the steam train days believing that man now had the capacity to clear the whole darned world of timber, jungles and all, causing big backfires from nature, the prediction that most men were still too stupid to realise what they had done.

Some of these types carried on so much that they even locked some of them up saying they'd gone off their rockers.

It is when an old retired cockie indeed becomes a bit philosophical truly wondering about these Bod's who bellieve whatever mess we make of the global countryside, man can fix it.

But there is another story about man you might only hear in the local pubs, that man with all the powerful mechanical monsters at hand, is more likely to f-ck it than fix it?

Cheers, BB, WA.
Posted by bushbred, Thursday, 20 August 2009 1:23:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. Page 8
  10. 9
  11. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy